SUNSHINE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jones
77 So. 3d 254
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sunshine State Insurance sued Geico to determine which insurer must indemnify and defend Nicho Watson for a teen horseplay accident.
- Nicho, Carley Moore, Michele Baldasti, and Kayla Mineo were in Carley’s Toyota Corolla; Nicho repeatedly grabbed the steering wheel.
- The car swerved on an exit ramp after Carley tried to swat Nicho away; Nicho’s actions occurred while the car was moving.
- Sunshine argued Nicho’s conduct fell within the auto policy’s use/ownership provisions, triggering Geico’s duty to defend/indemnify.
- Geico argued Nicho’s conduct did not constitute use of the car, so the auto policy did not apply and Sunshine’s homeowner policy should cover.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Geico; the appellate court affirmed, holding Nicho’s actions did not arise from the use of a non-owned auto and Sunshine’s policy provided coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nicho’s conduct constitutes use of a non-owned auto under Geico’s policy | Sunshine: use occurred via steering wheel-grab, within auto-use | Geico: no use; horseplay not driving the car | No; not use; auto policy not triggered |
| Whether the auto policy excludes coverage and dictates defense, given Nicho’s conduct | Sunshine: exclusion not applicable; conduct not “arising out of” ownership/use | Geico: exclusion applies to use of vehicle | Excluded; but court held homeowner policy provides coverage rather than auto policy |
| Which policy should provide defense/indemnity given the competing exclusions and definitions | Sunshine: homeowner policy should cover; act not within auto policy | Geico: auto policy should cover if use; otherwise exclusion binds | Homeowner policy provides coverage; auto policy does not apply under facts |
Key Cases Cited
- West American Ins. Co. v. Silverman, 378 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (homeowner policy may provide defense when passenger’s actions do not arise from use of auto)
- Race v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1989) (interprets ‘arising out of ownership/maintenance/use’ consistently with auto policies)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 273 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (definition of ‘arising out of use’ of an automobile guiding policy interpretation)
- Corbo v. National Indem. Co., 248 So.2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (early framing of broad interpretation of ‘arising out of’ use)
- Cesarini v. Am. Druggist Ins. Co., 463 So.2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (insight on use vs. ownership in policy interpretations)
- Alligator Enters., Inc. v. Gen. Agent’s Ins. Co., 773 So.2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (illustrates complementary construction of auto and homeowner policies)